Thanks, Alec,
One other thought I had was that it would be nice to support a "tftp prefix",
e.g. "setenv tftp_prefix roach2/", so that macros that tftp a file could
request "${tftp_prefix}filename" instead of just "filename". Note that I
showed a '/' in tftp_prefix, but it need not be a directory separator (e.g.
"tftp_prefix=roach2-" would work too).
This would make it easier to have one tftp server handle both roach1 and roach2
boards.
Dave
On Nov 15, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Alec Rust wrote:
> Good plan David, will do. There are some more updates so I will release this
> with the new round.
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:53 AM, David MacMahon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Hi, Alec,
>
> Thanks for the updates!
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Alec Rust wrote:
>
> > To program the new u-boot (NB! choose the correct binary for your revision
> > of R2, programming the wrong binary will cause the board to switch itself
> > off at boot, and fixing that requires soldering on the board):
> > 1. Set up a tftp and dhcp server (see the tftp section in the test machine
> > setup instructions).
> > 2. Create a symlink or rename the u-boot binary to "u-boot.bin" e.g. "ln -s
> > u-boot-r2-rev1.bin u-boot.bin" in the tftp directory.
>
> I'd like to suggest making the tftpuboot "command" use the explicitly named
> file (e.g. u-boot-r2-rev1.bin) rather than having to create a generically
> named "u-boot.bin" symlink to it. The u-boot binary already differs between
> board revisions so using different filenames doesn't seem like it would add
> much complication on the build side (though maybe it would?). It would
> greatly simplify the user side by being able to update u-boot on different
> revisions of ROACH2 without having to go through the error-prone (i.e.
> forgot-to-change-it-prone) manual step of checking/updating the symlink.
>
> Is that possible/reasonable?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
